fred johnson

Yes, the DRP wording is very archaic, reflecting a Christian background. And, it's a membership criteria that BSA has opened up to being flexible for most every faith. But BSA still explicitly rejects atheism ... and most everyone knows this. ..... I still hope click23 can find a way to pass this scout. This happens too often for BSA to leave it like this.

Yes. The example is admitting a short coming in a do-your-best program. The issue is denying a fundamental value of BSA. Scouts of any rank are representing BSA and it's program. When you deny the fundamental value, why would you advance to the next higher level? - Pass - You believe in helping people but just can't step up to help some people. - Fail - You don't believe scouts should be "helpful" in this dog-eat-dog world. - Pass - You're out of shape, but believe in fitness. - Fail - You're in great shape, but believe fitness is a joke and not a value people strive to achieve. You plan to go home and eat junk food the rest of your life. There does need to be a fail line when looking at values otherwise they are not values. For this scout, I really hope they can find a way to pass him. ... OR ... have BSA step in to help pass him by making minor changes to open up the criteria. aka ... stop making faith a membership criteria. Faith friendly, not faith based.

I was just trying to provide wiggle room. Unexplored means you could chat and if he says he's not sure, it buys you flexibility. Especially as when his membership app was signed by his parents, the app said he was eligible. aka he was qualified. Plus, the scout has had five boards of review that have passed him. I hate seeing big issues like this only be raised at the finishing line. It's a very unfair and discouraging situation for everyone.

click23 ... You are directly on target. The first (duties) can be argued, but the second (membership) is the challenge. The earlier questions above are good. The key is whether there is wiggle room. And there is a strong difference between "no beliefs" and atheism. Undecided (unexplored, not sure) versus decided (atheism). I'd only ask that you don't confused our intellectual bouncing of ideas back and forth with what to do with this scout. Compassion. Compassion. Compassion. If there is any way to favor the scout in this hard situation, favor the scout.

"I just don't believe" that people who argue for the FSM being treated equally as a religion are being intellectually honest. Sure almost anything can be treated as religion and we should be respect that and those who practice it. But, a fundamental point should be it's an honest position to start from. The original FSM author Henderson said ... Similarly, I don't don't have problem at all with farce or humor or protest or intellectual exercises. What I have a problem with is treating them as a real religion as it dishonors the faith of everyone else. BSA has a requirement to believe in God. Great flexibility is given including avoiding asking the key question. aka don't ask, don't tell. But once it's on the table, it's on the table.

I'd hope not. When people effectively choose to flip off a requirement, I'd hope we could call them on it. Though I am often one of the most flexible with requirements, but there is a limit. Perhaps, this is the ultimate true statement. How do you function when BSA says to recognize a duty to God ... AND ... to show respect for all faiths. BUT ... the faith of the specific person is to show disrespect and mock others faith. We see the same contradiction in many of the larger world issues today. Groups that say we must live together, but other groups that say it's our faith or else. Wicca ... I'm not comfortable with Wiccan culture or beliefs, but IMHO it would pass the requirements. Because people do believe in it. And, it's not fundamentally about mocking others faith. Ahhhh ... there's the other part of the issue. But we are asked to judge. We are given references. One reference is religious. Or as in this case, a scout choose to state his beliefs during an Eagle Board Of Review. The whole point of the EBOR is to judge if the requirements are completed. In the original post, it was effectively a membership requirement issue. In my thread, it's asserting a statement of faith that mocks faith. There is a threshold at which requirements are not met. Heck, one requirement is he's a he and he's not a she. But we can't access proof and even then maybe we should not be evaluating one's maleness. If a flying spaghetti monster is accepted as a faith, then girls should be able to earn Boy Scout ranks by saying they are male. BSA's membership requirements include recognizing an obligation to God. It also requires showing respect for the convictions of others. We can argue about changing or eliminating requirements. And I think that's a good debate and I'd be open to changing requirements. But for now, the requirements exist. Requirements are judged whether they are met. (and personally, I'd be okay with eliminating the requirement that Boy Scouts are for boys too. ... but it is what it is for now)

I don't think it would be reversed. But ... I do believe the scout would be given a 2nd chance after they communicate what they believe. The requirement is a reference from a religous leader and/or a statement of their faith / beliefs. The issue I was addressing was not a religious choice. I said FSM would have a high hurdle because the flying sphaghetti monster is used for demonstrate aburdity of faith / beliefs. As such, it immediately violates respect for other faiths. Essentially, it's giving the requirement the finger. ... BUT ... If the scout really did assert that was his belief and that it was not being asserted to insult or mock other faiths, then I would accept it and he'd pass. The issue I was addressing was choosing to mock religion and faith. ​

... and ... When they grow up, they show up at my church with a bull horn at 1:00am after Christmas midnight mass.

The EBOR did the right thing. If they don't have an immediate solution, it gives them time to find an solution. It gives them time to step back and figure out what to do. I'd hope they finished the rest of the EBOR before suspending the EBOR. But resuming and continuing the EBOR might be a good solution too. It allows for a smooth closure either way. The key, IMHO, is whether the scout was just making honest conversation. A primary component in most faiths is compassion. We as leaders need to show compassion and understanding to the scouts. If the scout was just being honest about himself, then I'd support the scout and support his earning Eagle. I like the view that scouting is "faith friendly, not faith based". As long as the scout can be friendly and work in such an environment, then move on and let him have his achievement. Heck sometime we start taking pledges / oath before we even realize how much we don't agree with some of the words. I'd only object if it was clear the scout was making a point or going to use the Eagle process to advocate for atheism or advocate for how BSA is wrong.

When did he say it? Where did he say it? What triggered the statement being said?

It really depends on when, where and how the statement was made and how, when and where the EBOR became aware of it. There is no one precise answer. It's multitude answers and very nuanced based on what happened. You need to provide more specifics. In another words, it's a car wreck and you're the paramedic who might be able to keep him alive. But it really depends on the injuries.

Similar but different in our case. Our council has a % markup (forget the exact percent), but it's to cover those events that don't break even. As for camps, we pay the camp fee just like anyone else. It's built into our event cost. So if the camp charges $5 per day per person, we pay it. If the shelter is $100 per weekend, we pay it. It's then built into the budget and the amount we charge each person. The district exec is free. He doesn't staff events as part of his salary. He's paid to do other things, not to run district events. But there is a markup to cover events that don't break eve.

Yes and No. Eagle is a rank. The term "rank" is used instead of "award" because Eagle Scout is not awarded (aka given / bestowed). Rank is used to emphasize the scout earns Eagle by completing requirements. It's emphasizing that the scout's controls his own advancement.. On the flip side, I think more emphasis should be given to doing well with earlier rank advancements. Only because I think it's often the case that when people object to someone earning Eagle, it's because of past issues at earlier ranks. The scout cruised by earning Star and Life. The scout didn't learn his basic skills well enough. IMHO, it's the wrong time to address it when the scout is working to earn his Eagle rank. The time to address those were earlier in his advancement.

A lot written here that is good and bad. And some that is just too long for even me to read. ... Each of us would like to see a different set of changes. Fine. My hot button topic is different. AND ... I'm tempted to start another merit badge topic to cover a different direction. Hot button ... Merit Badge counselors should be expected to make the topic interesting. If they can't make it interesting for an average scout, then they are not qualified. If they don't have the time to make it interesting, then don't teach the badge. If the venue (one-on-one, MB fair, summer camp, etc) doesn't enable inspiring others, don't teach it there. It's fine that some scouts won't like a topic or not in the right mood on that day or some other reason. But I've seen way way too many scouts chase merit badges because it's a merit badge. Even worse, I've seen way way way way too many MB situations where the MB counselor is obviously just addressing the requirements without a love or passion for the topic. That should be an automatic "stop right there" situation. For any MB, the "requirements" should be the starting point, aka the minimum. After that, the MB councilor should inspire and help create a passion in the scout. Otherwise, why even teach the badge. Now we can't force scouts to be inspired, but we should expect our MBCs to have a gift and passion for the topic. For example, when I council-ed multiple people in Citizen in the Nation, we have done most of it while at a nearby national historic landmark and we've talked a lot about the landmark, toured it and gone where you normally can't. IMHO, I get passionate about the topics and I think it's inspiring. I really don't care if a scout gets any specific merit badge. It's only significant in my eyes if they leave with interest and/or new skills. For example the 40 year old who says they like to sail because they took small boat sailing at summer camp. Or the photographer who got interested because of a MB. .... or the scout who walks away from a MB saying that was cool.

A lot of good detail here. - Merit badges reflecting the outdoor environment. Pioneering. Camping. Astronomy. Nature. - Reduce the merit badge factory feel and make more opportunities to do fun things. But I also have some different opinions.

​Only if you drive a bus and everyone lives miles apart. Usually, kids are clumped in neighborhoods. Our troop doesn't have a bus. Most adults drive back their own son plus two or three extra. Some with minivans or suburbans drive more. For myself, the kids live within blocks of our house or we plan driving routes to optimize drop offs. For myself who drops off the most, it adds maybe 10 minutes total. ... Unless one is way out of the way. Then, plans adjust for that.

No penalty feed. $15 annually. .... Though I swear it was $10 annually last year or the year before. Inflation. Meh.

Based on the little I understand ... here's some rules I'd apply. - $250 is little in the long run. Write it off. It's annoying to lose, but hopefully the troop can survive it. Volunteers don't want to volunteer time to chase recovery of $$ in these situations. For our pack, we'd be running a little lower on our financial safety net for a year or two until it's rebuilt. Our pack budget is around $7000 per year and we try to keep an extra $1500 in the bank at the end of the year. Our troop has little expenses except camp outs paid for by scouts. So, it would hit our troop harder. But we'd survive. - Separate the scout from the situation. If you go after the money, work with the parent. Working with the scout to recover the $$ might teach a good lesson, but I suspect it's just adding more stress on an already stressful home situation. I'd rather not do that. - Future fundraisers ... ask for the money first then hand over the product. Your trust is broken. I do the same with camps until we get burned. Trust until trust is broken. - As for the scout's continued involvement and how he pays for camps, that's a judgement call. If the scout was benefiting, I'd find a way that scouting could be his safe haven from a bad situation. I'd keep the $$ between the scoutmaster, committee chair and the treasurer. - In my experience, it's hard to help a scout overcome a bad family situation. Usually family problems eventually cause scouts to drop out of scouting whether by them triggering it or by his acting out. But for as long as your troop can help, your troop can be his safe haven and still teach valuable lessons. It's really hard judgement call and you are best placed to decide what to do. ... just don't punish the scout for the parent's actions.

Ask small individual questions. - Is the scout benefiting from the program otherwise ? - Do we think we will realistically get the money back ? - How far are we willing to take this ? - Can the family afford to cover the loss ? - Is something else going on ? - What about future events ?